Wednesday, 26 July 2017

This
article in Monday’s Guardian by
Shadow Trade Secretary Barry Gardiner has drawn a great deal of criticism for
saying, in essence, that Brexit is going to make us all worse off, but that’s
what people voted for and that’s what we must therefore do. As far as the conclusions that he draws are
concerned, I agree with the criticism.
It should be incredible that the main opposition party can conclude that
a policy is a really bad idea and then go on to support it with enthusiasm. He’s not alone in taking this strange view of
leadership by politicians – one of his colleagues
said much the same thing yesterday, but went on to add that the Labour Party’s
position could be flexible if public opinion were to change. It’s a complete abdication of leadership and
principle, and suggests that, at any time, the Labour Party’s political
philosophy is whatever a perceived majority happen to think.

There
are parts of Gardiner’s analysis, however, with which I entirely agree. His opening paragraph:

“Most trade agreements arise from a
desire to liberalise trade – making it easier to sell goods and services into
one another’s markets. Brexit will not. Brexit arose from key political, rather than
trade, objectives: to have control over our borders, to have sovereignty over
our laws, not to submit to the European court of justice (ECJ), and not to pay
money into the European budget. When
negotiations start it will be the first time countries seek a trade agreement
with the clear understanding that they are increasing barriers between them.”

reflects
a point that this blog has made a number of times: there is no such thing as a
‘soft’ Brexit, there is only continued membership under a different name.

(Although
I don’t entirely agree with his claim that both sides are entering the
negotiations with the understanding that they are increasing barriers between
them; I suspect that the Brexiteers really don’t understand that even now. That’s one of the worst aspects of their
position – and it’s largely mirrored by that of the Labour Party when they talk
about having “the exact same benefits”
whilst being outside the single market.)

I
agree with his statement that Brexit arose primarily from political rather than
trade objectives, and that the only way to give expression to those political
objectives is to opt for the so-called ‘hard’ Brexit being pursued by the
government. That ignores, of course, the
frequent statements made by Brexiteers during the referendum campaign that
Brexit did not mean leaving the single market, but that was politicians
campaigning, a process in which lying has become the norm. It should always have been clear that, if the
slogans about taking back control meant anything, they meant leaving the single
market, whatever politicians looking for votes may have said at the time.

Gardiner
is simply being honest in what he says. A
Welsh Labour MP, Wayne David, made a similar point yesterday, when
he said that it would be very difficult to accept membership of the single
market as being compatible with Brexit.
Whilst many of us see the so-called ‘Norway Model’ as more attractive
than Brexit, I fully understand that it actually means a greater loss of sovereignty
than formal membership of the EU, since it requires adherence to laws and rules
with no representation in devising them.

The
real problem facing us is not people like Gardiner or David who are openly and
honestly spelling out the consequences of the vote that was taken last year,
but the fudging politicians who pretend that it is somehow possible to give expression
to that vote whilst remaining a member of the EU in all but name. It isn’t, and the better and more honest
position is to argue that a mistake has been made on the basis of an utterly
false prospectus and give people the opportunity to correct it. The idea that democracy is – or ever can be –
about a single irrevocable vote on one day in one set of circumstances is a
misuse of the word ‘democracy’. We need politicians
to provide honest leadership on the issue, but they mostly seem too cowardly to
do that.